Hi,
On 06/09/2013 02:28 AM, Pete Batard wrote:
> On 2013.06.08 19:22, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> a dash or a dot, ie accept "nl.UTF-8".
>
> Good point.
>
>> Ok, so lets modify your proposal with an INVALAD_PARAM check then, and
>> move forward with your proposal.
>
> OK. If I understand the rest of y
On 2013.06.08 19:22, Hans de Goede wrote:
a dash or a dot, ie accept "nl.UTF-8".
Good point.
Ok, so lets modify your proposal with an INVALAD_PARAM check then, and
move forward with your proposal.
OK. If I understand the rest of your message properly, you don't want
the function with the s
Hi,
On 06/08/2013 04:56 PM, Pete Batard wrote:
> On 2013.06.08 13:05, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> 1) You simplify the setlocale function
>
> Well, duh.
>
> I think I've been pretty clear that I've been trying to spend the least
> amount of time I can looking at this localization charade.
> But if y
2013/6/8 Pete Batard :
> On 2013.06.08 16:39, Ludovic Rousseau wrote:
>> If you don't want to invest more time than needed then just provide
>> the missing MSVC and mingw changes.
>> But you _also_ had time to rewrite a working code.
>
> Indeed. The choice was: Do I want to leave libusbx with a sol
Hi,
On 06/08/2013 07:55 PM, Pete Batard wrote:
> On 2013.06.08 16:45, Ludovic Rousseau wrote:
>> Should we change the history and reapply the patches using the correct
>> procedure?
>>
>> I volunteer to do the job.
>
> I'm not too bothered about it at this stage, if we have a commit not too
> far
On 2013.06.08 16:45, Ludovic Rousseau wrote:
> Should we change the history and reapply the patches using the correct
> procedure?
>
> I volunteer to do the job.
I'm not too bothered about it at this stage, if we have a commit not too
far along that will sort the nano.
If people come to us befor
On 2013.06.08 16:39, Ludovic Rousseau wrote:
> If you don't want to invest more time than needed then just provide
> the missing MSVC and mingw changes.
> But you _also_ had time to rewrite a working code.
Indeed. The choice was: Do I want to leave libusbx with a solution that
will make it more d
2013/6/8 Hans de Goede :
> Hi,
>
> On 06/06/2013 07:59 PM, Pete Batard wrote:
>> On 2013.06.06 18:08, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> I've merged the pull request into master.
>>
>> Be mindful that when using github's merge, you lose the nano bump.
>> => the last 5 commits will report the exact same versi
2013/6/8 Pete Batard :
> As pointed out above, I'm not using "tricks" because I have to, but
> because I didn't want to waste more time than needed on this, and I fail
> to see the part where there's something fundamentally tricky about
> converting something into a bounded array index to reference
On 2013.06.08 13:05, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Not working because of the project file issues, or did you find other
> issues too ?
MSVC was not working because strerror.c was not referenced.
MinGW was not working because it is referencing the dll by default, and
the .def file used to generate the i
Hi,
On 06/08/2013 12:31 AM, Pete Batard wrote:
> On 2013.06.07 08:05, Ludovic Rousseau wrote:
>> It is too late to rewrite exiting and working code.
>
> How is it too late?
> This code has not been integrated and furthermore was proposed for review.
> Also, it does not work, since it breaks Window
Hi,
On 06/06/2013 07:59 PM, Pete Batard wrote:
> On 2013.06.06 18:08, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> I've merged the pull request into master.
>
> Be mindful that when using github's merge, you lose the nano bump.
> => the last 5 commits will report the exact same version of libusbx...
Oops, my bad, and
12 matches
Mail list logo
